What's Left of Maplewood (MN)

MapleStirUps 5/9/08

2008-05-10T04:57:00.001-05:00

[Technical difficulties. Please stand by]

CoPar

2008-05-05T23:51:00.003-05:00

I am going to write this before the end of tonight's discussion. So, this may be moot by the time everything is said and done.

This is really an open letter to all of the people fighting so hard for the CoPar land. That is you, Michael Bailey, Ron Cockriel, the Bonitz's & others. I will say, all of your arguments about keeping CoPar from doing what they want to do are very noble.

Furthermore, I commend the rest of the people involved in the process. That includes ALL of the council members, the staff, and others involved. Many things have been brought to light that may not have otherwise been revealed.

One thing you must understand is that I too live down here. I can even admit to wandering quite regularly onto what is now (and actaully always has been) private property. I too love the area and would like to see it kept in its currently unbuilt state. For those that have not done a walk-a-bout on the land, you really should do so before the land is developed. The land is one of the finest pieces you will find.

However, with all of the discussion, with all of the lawyering and attorneying, one simple thing has been missed thru all of this. It's like the 800 pound gorilla in the room that no one is talking about. And here it is:

Money.

Yes. It is that simple. It all comes down to money.

CoPar is not a non-profit. They are in it to make money. Has any of you actually talked to the principals at CoPar. They are real people. Just like you and I. They have bills to pay. They have mouths to feed. As far as I can tell, they do not seem to live an overly extravagant life. So I wouldn't characterize them as evil people. They are just that, people. People trying to make a buck.

CoPar bought the land. They bought it fairly from the Schlomkas. I would argue that ANYONE had the chance to buy the same land. The problem is, noone else stood up at the time. And now that CoPar wants to make good on their investment, everyone stands up. It might be too late. At least before the court date.

Well, there is good news. With the simple thing that is missing from all the hot air spewed out tonight, namely money, we have a solution.

To Michael and the rest of the Bailey clan living down on Sterling, to Ron, to Mayor Longrie and to all others:

The solution is very simple. Since you all love the land so much (and no one loves it more than me) and you would like to keep it how it is, how about putting your money where your mouths have been for the last two years and put your efforts into coming up with enough funds to buy the land back from CoPar? Try to convice the rest of the citizens of the city to do a referendum for enough funds to buy out even at least part of CoPar's interest, putting the land into the city's hands.

Should you choose to take on this task, I would promise to step in with you.

Until then, I am afraid that CoPar owns the land and will very likely be allowed to do what they legally have the right to do.

MapleStirUps 5/2/08

2008-05-02T16:37:00.003-05:00

Click image for a larger view

MapleStirUps 4/25/08

2008-04-25T15:23:00.003-05:00

Click image for a larger view

Visitor Presentations, Headlines & an Old College Game

2008-04-21T09:28:00.003-05:00

Will Rossbach:

I am pleading with you! Please don't take away the visitor presentations. In their current format, I have been able to revive a once forgotten game we used to play in college called "Bob. Hi Bob." You may have heard of it. If not, here is an explanation.

What we would do is grab a six-pack of our favorite beer, open one, and tune in to the Bob Newhart Show on TV. We would watch intently until someone on the show said "Bob". At this point, you were required to take a swig. At any time during the show, if someone said "Hi Bob", you would have to chug your whole beer. (Remember, I said we were in college. I didn't say we were playing a thinking man's game.)

Well, the following video has brought me back to the time of those long lost nights in front of the tube.

Please oh please, Will. Please don't deprive me of this enjoyment!

For the rest of you...

Help me out. If you take a swig every time you hear the word "headline", how many swigs would you have to take during this SIX MINUTE video? Oh yeah, and if you are playing along at home, the "drink the full beer" word is..."embezzle".

PS: No driving or operating heavy machinery after watching the clip!

MapleStirUps 4/18/08

2008-04-18T14:31:00.001-05:00

Click image for a larger view

Longrie's Maplewood

2008-04-15T09:06:00.004-05:00

First off, I hate taxes like the next gal/guy. What some people don't get though, is that all of us in the city share the costs for what the city provides. That's what your taxes are. What the Mayor and her no taxes zealot friends don't get is that in order to have a great city with great amenities, someone's got to pay.

Based on the ideals of Mayor longrie and her idea of taxation & spending, here is a glimpse of what Maplewood would look like if she had her way...

MapleStirUps 4/11/08

2008-04-11T15:32:00.005-05:00

Click image for a larger view

If I were 164% of myself

2008-04-09T14:17:00.006-05:00

OK. So, I got to thinking about John Nephew's letter to the LMCIT. In it he points out that over the course of 1 year, there was an increase of 164% in net losses compared with the last 20 years COMBINED. (Yes, Bob & Dave, that number is correct! This is the Truth. No Friendly math here.)

That is a stunning number.

So I began to ponder what 164% is. Let's say I weigh 210 pounds now and it has taken me 20 years from birth to get there. Next year at this time, I would weigh a whopping 528 pounds!!

This is probably what it would look like...

Before Longrie & Copeland...

After Longrie & Copeland...

Reconize anyone from these pictures...?

Don't tell Mama

2008-04-09T11:15:00.003-05:00

[youTube removed, a little copyright issue there. the boss]

[Here is a better one. Chastity]

Letter to the editor: Stop covering Maplewood

To the editor:
Dear Sirs: The Lillie News is inaccurate + irresponsible in its reporting of Maplewood politics. It would be a worthwhile newspaper if you eliminated politics from your publication. Give it a try + see if it doesn’t increase your circulation + financial potential. Seriously.
In the mean time, as long as the Lillie News continues to lie to the people, I cannot support, nor condone your form of journalism.
Dave Hafner
Maplewood

I would mail this to the editorial dept. but Hollie Wenzel will not publish it. Please ensure that the editor + owners of the paper receive this message.

Editor’s note: Current reports on the Review’s Web site hits show that not only is readership up, with people staying on the site longer, but Maplewood city stories are constantly among the top 10 chosen to read further.

MapleStirUps 4/4/08

2008-04-04T15:18:00.002-05:00

Click image for larger view

MapleStirUps 3/28/08

2008-03-28T16:51:00.002-05:00

Click image for a larger view

MapleStirUps 3/22/08

2008-03-22T14:21:00.003-05:00

Click image for a larger view

MapleStirUps 3/14/08

2008-03-14T15:19:00.006-05:00

click image for a larger view

MapleStirUps 3/10/08

2008-03-09T07:10:00.004-05:00

Click image for a larger view

The Bill Comes Due

2007-11-19T12:56:00.000-06:00

The election will bring change in the Maplewood City Council -- but not until January. In the meantime, the sitting council needs to finish its budget for 2008. Two days after the voters spanked the council majority in the September primary, the trio decided to give Rebecca Cave a last-ditch campaign gimmick, by voting 3-2 (with essentially no discussion) to freeze the property tax levy at 2007's level. This allowed them to campaign on claims of holding down taxes, while putting off the actual hard work of balancing the revenue shortfall with other revenue sources (non-property tax and fee increases) and service cuts until after the election.

Now the election is past, and we can see the bill for Rebecca's campaign strategy. Take a look at today's meeting packet, which includes the proposed 2008 rates for all kinds of city fees and taxes. As expected by anyone who wasn't lured in by the council majority's shell game, we see many double-digit (and larger) increases.

Is your street due for repair in 2008? Expect to pay 10% more for your assessment. If your street is getting a complete reconstruction, that will be an extra $500 out of your pocket, compared to people whose streets were fixed this year.

Environmental Utility Fund fees on properties in Maplewood are increasing 10%. For the typical single-family home, that means an extra $4.92 per year.

The really big increases are in the Planning Fees schedule. Have a plot of land that you need divided into multiple lots? The fee per lot created for residential one- or two-family dwellings is increasing from $87 to $1,110 -- a 1,176% increase. If you need to apply for a Conditional Use Permit for a single-family residential property, the fee is increasing 51% from $997 to $1510.

How about a sign for your business? The "Wall Sign Permit" (apparently we expect to issue 50 each year) has its fee increasing 46%, from $72 to $105.

All these fee increases aren't enough to cover the shortfall from the tax freeze, though, so even if they are all approved this evening, we can expect to see additional fee increases and spending cuts as the budget process moves forward.

Bombshell

2007-11-02T14:07:00.000-05:00

The Maplewood Voters Coalition has posted the transcript of an interview of Maplewood Police Officer Palma, which was released today by Dr. Marlene Palkovich's attorney. See Maplewood Voices for more background. Dr. Palkovich is a Police Civil Service Commissioner and also a board member of the MVC.

Synopsis: At a special meeting in early October, city employment attorney Charles Bethel leveled accusations against Police Commissioner Palkovich, saying that Officer Palma had filed a complaint that Dr. Palkovich had harassed him. Erik Hjelle made a motion to table the issue and adjourn the meeting, a motion that passed with a 3-2 vote (Hjelle/Cave/Longrie vs. Rossbach/Juenemann). Thus, after giving Bethel the opportunity to make these claims, the meeting ended without allowing Dr. Palkovich or her attorney to rebut the allegations.

It turns out that Palkovich's attorney had already interviewed Officer Palma, with Palma's attorney present. As the transcript of the recorded interview makes clear, Palma denied that he was harassed or made any complaint of harassment.

This portion of the exchange is perhaps even more disturbing (RF=attorney Rob Fowler, representing Dr. Palkovich; SP=Officer Palma; MA=police union attorney Marylee Abrams):

RF: Did anybody make, if you understand the term “a quid pro quo” deal with you to go along with this complaint in exchange for anything?

SP: Ah,

RF: I know these are difficult and ridiculous questions but I just need to know.

SP: Can I talk to you first (Marylee Abrams)?

MA: Sure.

(recorder left on while SP and MA left the room)

RF: I actually left my recorder running…

SP: Ok that’s fine.

RF: so there is no break in my recording.

SP: Alright, the question, if you want to repeat it for me?

RF: Ya know, I don’t know exactly how I asked it, but what I was wanting to know was did anybody at the City offer you kind of a “quid pro quo” deal for advancing this complaint, or did was there any promises made to you if you would go along with the complaint, anything like that?

SP: I’ll tell you the situation. I received 2 phone calls on this date.

RF: Ok?

SP: The first one, as I was still, I had just ah, ah, resigned as union steward, but we still had a contract negotiation, er contract that went through arbitration, and we were just ah, figuring out the particulars of it, and we had a conference call with our business agent, another union steward, and our finance director.

RF: Ok.

SP: Alright, ah, and ah, there was an issue settled, where it only affected me on deferred comp, where I ah got my backpay, ah, of $400, and ah, at the end of that conversation or as we were hanging up, and ah the business agent was going top take care of a couple of the other contract things, the City Attorney told me that he would be calling me back on another matter.

RF: OK. And then you got the call from Chuck Bethel?

SP: The City, I’m sorry the City Attorney, so it’s the same person, then he called me about an hour later.

Am I reading this right? It sounds like this police officer feels that his receiving $400 in back pay was given as a quid pro quo by the city attorney in exchange for going along with this false complaint against Dr. Palkovich.

City News: Right on Time

2007-11-02T08:43:00.001-05:00

Just as expected, the November city news is here remarkably early in the month -- you can download it now from the city website. As I predicted yesterday in a comment thread, it includes a healthy dose of taxpayer-funded campaign literature for Rebecca Cave.

Councilmember Erik Hjelle devotes his column (page 3) to reinforcing Cave's message from the previous issue, and attacking councilmember/candidate Rossbach. Unlike many columns attributed to Erik over the past two years, this one really does have the genuine feel of his writing. (The only time he uses the word "wonderful" is in quotation marks, with sarcasm. That's what real Hjelle writing is like!)

City Manager Greg Copeland devotes a full page to misrepresenting the financial and personnel impact of the 2007 budget. He trumpets a "million dollars in savings" in a budget that included a 10.2% tax levy increase, demonstrating as he has so often before his difficulty mastering the basics of mathematics. (Apparently the old "$700,000 in savings" number that he used to spout was deemed insufficiently grand, so now he is adding in the salaries of the dispatchers and their managers who transitioned to Ramsey County's payroll as part of the 800 MHz emergency communications changeover.)

Check it out, if you have the stomach for it.

Dear OAH

2007-11-01T20:08:00.000-05:00

If you haven't seen it yet, I noticed the Maplewood Voters Coalition today posted an update on events related to their successful complaint against Rebecca Cave and the MFA. Apparently Rebecca sent a "Dear OAH" letter asking that the judges reconsider their decision, and also asking for an extension on paying her fine. As you might expect, the court replied by explaining that if she disagrees with the ruling she has the option to ask the Court of Appeals to review her case, as the law dictates. If she can't pay the fine on time, it will begin to accrue interest, and if it gets to be 121 days past due it's turned over to collections.

Candidate Secures Husband's Endorsement

2007-11-01T09:13:00.001-05:00

In case you haven't seen it, this week's Maplewood Review includes a heartfelt endorsement for candidate Rebecca Cave from her husband, George. It looks like the newspaper took care to preserve its original form, so as not to be accused of editing it in some biased fashion.

Crunching Numbers

2007-10-28T08:22:00.000-05:00

Part of developing a campaign strategy involves studying results and seeing the strengths and weaknesses of your opponents. In that light, I've looked very closely at the results of the September primary.

Below is a table comparing the Rebecca Cave's results in this 2007 primary with the results of 2005. (Click on the image below to see a readable image of the spreadsheet.)

By looking at the results on a precinct-by-precinct basis, we can see where Cave has gained or lost support since she first ran two years ago, and how her campaign strategy has played in the field.

A few observations stand out to me.

Although she is an incumbent, Cave's percentage of the primary vote declined by 9 points between 2007 and 2005.
Turnout was up in every precinct in the city. However, only in 4 precincts (1, 2, 15, 16) did Cave's votes increase more than turnout for that precinct. In 12 of 16 precincts, Cave got a smaller percentage of the vote this year.
In fact, in 7 of 16 precincts, Cave received fewer raw votes in 2007 than 2005, despite the higher turnout.
Cave received fewer raw votes in 3 of the 5 precincts where she did best in 2005; her percentage performance declined in 4 of the 5.
The worst change for Cave was in her home precinct, Precinct 10, where she lost almost half of her voters – 37 votes in 2007 versus 72 in 2005, and a decline in vote share from 74% to 33%.
Cave's best performance was in Precinct 16, where she and her allies on the council have worked very hard to win over residents with the South Leg moratorium, with some success.
The three precincts where Cave did best are home to her allies: P2 (Mayor Longrie), P15 (allied candidate Rokke), and P16 (Councilmember Hjelle).

In the big picture, what I find most striking is that the people who were won over by the biggest promises in the last election cycle (the Gladstone area, where the scaremongering and misinformation campaigns were focused two years ago) are the ones who expressed the most dissatisfaction at the ballot box after actually seeing Cave and her majority in office.

Poor Ms. Cave

2007-10-25T16:49:00.001-05:00

I see that the Maplewood City Election Voters Guide has been updated for the general election. At least one item in the voters guide yells out at me for attention.

I remember someone (George?) trying to make a case in the comments section on Will Rossbach's blog that the $1000 sign fine was going to take money from kids mouths. I presume that the mouths were those of 'becca's kids.

Well, before George, or whomever it was, cries foul, they should ponder how much lunch money is being taken by having the kids attend private school in the first place. Can you say (very conservatively) $12,000 per year?

Don't whine to me about how poor you are when you are pumping out $1000 EACH MONTH for something you are entitled to receive...for free!

And what does this say about the decision making for the city? First, she guts the Parks department because there is not enough money. Then she turns around and rallies to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on "protecting" the parks and open space through conservation easments.

Forget "Poor Ms. Cave." How about Poor Judgement Ms. Cave?

New Business Development

2007-10-11T15:12:00.000-05:00

I do hope, in the next City News, that Councilmember Cave adds our city's thriving outrage manufacturing industry to the list of new and relocated businesses that she takes credit for.

Don't Sell the Parks. Sell the Community Center.

2007-10-10T14:49:00.000-05:00

Monday's meetings harken back to the earler days of this blog. There has not been nearly this much fun stuff in one evening for some time.

This first paragraph really wasn't a part of tonight's meeting, but...'becca and queen d don't want to sell the parks. They have certainly have made us all painfully aware of that (to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars in conservation easment funds). If they loved the parks so much, then why did they gut the parks department?

So, how does this tie into Monday's meeting? Well, it sounds like now, even though we don't want to sell the parks, we are OK with selling/trading part of the community center and possibly, later on, the space above the parks in the form of electronic signage.

Maybe if the three musketeers gave us first class parks and open space, people would fight to their death to protect them. No need for a conservation easement.

"Unreasonable and Illogical"

2007-10-05T23:30:00.000-05:00

As a follow-up to my last post, I notice that a three judge panel just ruled (and it hardly needs any further commentary):

[Erik Hjelle] testified repeatedly that by using the phrase “Maplewood Police and Fire Endorse Rebecca Cave,” he intended to communicate that Ms. Cave had the support of all Maplewood firefighters. Neither Hjelle nor the MFA have the authority to speak for the Department or the MPFA, and the evidence is undisputed that neither of these organizations has agreed to endorse Ms. Cave . . .

Mr. Hjelle testified that he relied on the Fire Chief’s apparent permission to allow paid-per-call firefighters to use the phrase “Maplewood Fire” on T-shirts and other apparel as the basis for believing that he could use the same phrase in an endorsement. This extrapolation is unreasonable and illogical, as are his efforts to seek trademark protection, on his own behalf, for a phrase and logo used by the City of Maplewood to identify its Fire Department.

Update: The OAH now has the text of the judges' findings in easy-to-browse HTML.

His Fire Department, Redux

2007-09-24T23:06:00.000-05:00

Back when this blog began, I was really inspired by Erik Hjelle. You might remember such classic lines of his as "No! It's not the city's fire station. It's my fire station. The City technically owns it, but it's my fire station and my fire truck."

Maybe you thought he was kidding. A reasonable person might suppose he was just trying to weasel out of punishment for campaign misdeeds.

But last week Erik decided to take this sense of pride and ownership in "his" Fire Department to a new level. Check out the Secretary of State's website, where you can see that he (or someone else who lives in his house) filed on September 18th to reserve the name "Maplewood Fire." He also claimed "Maplewood Fire" as a trademark owned by Erik Hjelle & Associates, his insurance business.

So what I'm wondering is, . . . will Erik now demand that the city pay him royalties to license the use of the "Maplewood Fire" trademark on their fire trucks, badges, and buildings? Will he sue to force them to add "Department" to all of those things, to avoid confusion? And, if he fails to do any or all of the above, will he run the risk of trademark dilution by not defending this newly claimed intellectual property?

Or is it all just an effort to weasel out of punishment for a new campaign season's misdeeds?

First Name Test

2007-09-12T17:12:00.000-05:00

In case you get tired of spelling, some positive campaigner sent this handy First Name Test to Will Rossbach. See if you can get all six!

Spelling Test

2007-09-12T09:13:00.001-05:00

Can someone show me how to spell referendum? No, not with letters. Lets try it with numbers.

I think it is spelled this way...

2340 and 2222 vs 941 and 793.

Rebecca & Delray, you need to study harder!

A Helpful Link for First-Time Visitors

2007-09-06T15:30:00.000-05:00

If you're coming to What's Left of Maplewood for the first time, you may be wondering what this is all about, and you may not have time to go back to the beginning.

For a shorter introduction, follow this link to a posting I made way back in February, when I had decided that things were so wrong in Maplewood that it wasn't enough to talk about it -- it was time to step forward and do something.

Misrepresentations Of Fact

2007-09-05T16:19:00.000-05:00

I wonder if our city manager also spends a lot of time writing letters to the lottery telling them that their Powerball billboards are wrong, because those big jackpots represent total payouts over time by annuities rather than a lump sum or net present cash value?

Parks

2007-09-04T22:35:00.000-05:00

Becky:

You say you care?

Do you really?

Do you really care about our city parks?

If you really did, you would find your way down to Lions park to survey it's state of existence. It is not the park that is closest to me (that would be Vista Hills). So, I do not have any sort of vested interest in it's repair other than the fact that the people in that neighborhood deserve better.

Unfortunately, had you lived in the neighborhood served by Lions park, it might get the same attention as a park down the street from you, that being your beloved Wakefield.

When I drive by Lions park, it reminds me of the park that I played in in North Saint Paul when I was growing up. That was more than 30 years ago. Seriously, that's what the equipment looks like. Something from the mid-70s.

So, rebecca, if you really do care, get the map out, and drive south of Larpenter Avenue (no, you don't need a passport to go that far south) down to Lions Park. Take a look and see what you and your fabulous city manager have done to the residents in that neighborhood by taking their previously approved park improvements off of the table in favor of the park in your neighborhood.

Let's see really how much you care about parks...All of our parks!

Breaking News!

2007-08-28T19:54:00.000-05:00

A full two days after the resignation of Alberto Gonzales became public, we still do not know what H. Alan Kantrud thinks about it.

Should public attorneys with a political agenda resign?

You'd think with a city website so full of legal news something would have been said by now. You'd be wrong.

Not that it's relevant or anything.

Diana's Campaign Strategy

2007-08-26T22:07:00.000-05:00

Send him in!

Rokke's Campaign Strategy

2007-08-26T21:39:00.002-05:00

Worth a shot.

Maybe....

Cave's Campaign Strategy

2007-08-26T21:31:00.001-05:00

Hide behind them ...

Bartol's Campaign Strategy

2007-08-26T21:18:00.001-05:00

(Maybe you could call someone Dave.)

(Or isn't she taking your calls?)

Maplewood Review on Le's Case

2007-08-23T00:28:00.000-05:00

This week's Maplewood Review includes a big article by Katy Zillmer about the Sherrie Le decision, with more information and comments.

Appeals Court Rules Against Le

2007-08-14T13:47:00.000-05:00

The appelate court ruling was issued today on one of the Sherrie Le legal cases. The decision was against Le.

For a quick recap, this decision was an appeal of the city's decision to fire Le. The city acts as a court of record in a personnel case like this, so disputes are handled by the court of appeals, which strictly looks at the legal issues at stake, not the facts. In other words, the administrative record that the city presents (in particular, the Schweiger report) is taken at face value, and the city essentially got to decide what was part of that record.

The court addressed three issues. I am not a lawyer, so take my interpretation with a grain of salt, but here is my best effort to summarize the court's findings.

1. Was the November 2001 policy manual or the April 2006 policy manual in effect when Le was fired?

The city argued that the April 2006 manual as amended by former city manager Richard Fursman was not formally adopted by the city council, so it was not in effect. (Amusingly, in another lawsuit -- the MCSA/Banick/etc. case about the reorganization in December -- the city's attorneys argue the exact opposite, namely, that policy manual revisions made by Greg Copeland and never approved/ratified by the city council went immediately into effect.)

The court sided with Le, agreeing that the April 2006 policy manual was effective.

(I am not sure what impact this may have on the other case(s). In the case of the December policy manual revisions made by Copeland, I think there are claims that he backdated the changes to say they were in effect before announcing the reorganization and terminations. There is also the question of whether the December 2006 changes were substantial enough to require council approval, where Fursman asserted that his April 2006 changes were really clarifying or strengthening existing city policies, not changing them.)

2. Was Le an at-will employee?

The original issue here was whether the decision to terminate Le's employment, being based on the Schwieger report, was "fraudulent, arbitrary, oppressive, and unreasonable, and is not supported by substantial evidence." However, since an at-will employee "may be terminated for any reason or no reason at all," the court states that "an at-will employee’s termination cannot be procedurally improper, arbitrary, oppressive, unreasonable, or unsupported by the evidence." (I'm not sure why "fraudulent" is left out of the second list.)

So if Le was an at-will employee, it doesn't matter why the city manager fired her.

On the question of whether she was at-will, the court basically sided with the city's argument that limiting language in the April 2006 policy manual kept it from constituting an agreement that would have modified Le's employment from being "at-will" to a contractual relationship where the city would have to show cause to fire her:

Specifically, section one of both policy manuals states: “The[se] provisions do not establish terms and shall not be construed as contractual provisions.” This language clearly and effectively indicates the city’s intent to avoid creating an employment contract on the terms contained therein, thereby precluding contract formation. See Audette, 436 N.W.2d at 127. Because a contract was not formed, Le’s at-will employment status was not altered by the policies contained in the city’s policy manual.

Thus, on the crux of the matter the court concluded, "Le was an at-will employee when the city terminated her employment. Accordingly, the city acted within its authority to terminate her for any reason."

3. Did the city violate Le's right to due process by firing her without just cause and failing to give her a name-clearing hearing?

Having decided that Le was an at-will employee, the court said that she had no property interest in her job and thus could not claim a right to due process over losing it.

As for name-clearing, the court seemed to allow that this could be a permitted claim, but stated that Le had not provided evidence to support it. The court wrote, "Even if we assume that the reasons for the city’s termination decision are stigmatizing, Le has not cited any record or non-record evidence to support her allegation that the city made these reasons public." Apparently this is an area where the relator could have introduced evidence that was not in the administrative record supplied by the city. But without such evidence supplied to it, the court was "unable to conclude that the city made its reasons for terminating Le public. Consequently, the facts and information before us do not establish a basis for us to conclude that Le’s liberty interests were violated so as to warrant a name-clearing hearing."

• • •

While the city won this round, it's not the end of the Le-related legal battles. There remain lawsuits in federal and state court, charging that Le was fired in retaliation for union organizing (and in violation of a maintenance of status quo order that was then in effect from the state Bureau of Mediation Services) and for being a whistleblower (for pushing for the background check of Mr. Copeland, required by city ordinance; and for reporting violations of the law by the council majority, such as alleged open meeting law violations by Mayor Longrie, Councilperson Hjelle, and former councilperson David Bartol, who had been appointed to fill the seat of Jackie Monahan-Junek before the special election in February 2006).

Just Like Berlin

2007-08-08T21:27:00.000-05:00

These organizations, and their computers...

In case you missed it, the Colbert Report had some outstanding blogger convention coverage.

Walk the Walk

2007-08-04T21:30:00.001-05:00

Becky. Oh dear Becky.

I got the "pleasure" of watching you on di di's cable lovefest from July 20-something. Funny how your face is suddenly appearing in places we have not seen. Used to be that you were really good at being Ms. Second. Now you're chairing meetings. You're on cable shows. As they used to say on Good Times..."We're movin' on up!..." Could it be that September is fast approaching and you are getting a little worried about your relevance and the possibility of making it out of the primary?

A couple of things stick out from your lovefest with di di. Could be that there are many. However, I only saw the last 10 minutes or so. That was enough for me.

It seems from your apprearance that you love to talk the talk of citizen involvement. Much chatter too about open government. I hate to do this, but I must go back to one of the most important issues of your term. That is the hiring of your city manager. I have said it before and I will say it again. Approving the city manager at 2:00 AM with one citizen sitting in the audience is not exactly what I would call citizen involvement. Having erik the great read off a prepared statement at that time and neither yourself, nor di di raise as much as an eyebrow certainly smacks of something other than open government.

You and di di like to pay lip service to the citizen involvement. How about you and di di put the shoes on and start walking...

Handwriting on the wall

2007-07-30T16:21:00.001-05:00

If Belshazzar's dream-wall had simultaneous translation

Yard Sign

2007-07-12T11:25:00.000-05:00

(the latest)

Of Unanimous Petitions

2007-07-09T13:28:00.000-05:00

Just a little warm-up for tonight...

Dear Mayor:

I have three petitions to bring before you this evening.

Each is signed UNANIMOUSLY by 10 affected citizens. In the case of petition 2, all are residents on the affected street.

Based on the fact that the residents of O'Day street won your heartfelt approval at the last council meeting based on their unanimity, we are certain you will vote in our favor based on our unanimity.

Petition 1:

Whereas, it is apparent from the last meeting that you have no idea where you are spending city $'s for the Brookview street reconstruction (Where is O'Day, anyway?). Be it resolved that you should get out and about on occasion and figure out where stuff is beyond the streets between your lovely castle and your mighty throne at City Hall.

Petition 2:

Whereas the residents of O'Day street thought they had cornered the market on NIMBYness. Be it resolved that all of the residents on Sterling Street wish to close off THIER street and force all of the traffic on to O'Day street. There may be more residents on O'Day. But we feel unanimously that we are better and therefore do not need the extra hassle of sharing neighborhood traffic.

Petition 3:

I leave this one for last as it precludes you from taking care of the other two...

Whereas we have a group of 10 citizens who are concerned about the direction of the city. Be it resolved that the 10 petitioners would like you and your two other open-meeting-law-violating loopy-city-manager-2-AM-hiring selves to resign effective immediately so we can have our city back.

Thanks for your votes!

Patterns of Culture

2007-07-03T11:30:00.000-05:00

Kung Fu Monkey says: Our representatives -- and to a great degree we as a culture -- are completely buffaloed by shamelessness.

Sound familiar?

Ruth Benedict wrote about this a while back.

Elements of Style

2007-06-29T21:40:00.000-05:00

Is it just me, have Longrie, Cave, and Hjelle managed somehow to get indistinguishable writing voices in their recent City News columns? If they didn't have a byline, could you guess who had written them?

Wordsmith Becky

2007-06-25T22:29:00.000-05:00

Ahh!

The dulcet tones of our council linguist, miss becky. During the Comforts of Home Design Review Amendment portion of the meeting...

Did she really say "...the person-who-puts-it-on expert..."?!?

becky. How about doing something novel. Like actually reading the packets (or even the occasional dictionary) instead of taking direction from campaign manager, diana.

Let us help you out. I think the term you were looking for is installers.

After the performance review

2007-06-15T16:11:00.001-05:00

The bit players in the sideshow all take a bow.

Now Copeland can get back to performing.

Friends, Enemies & erik the Campaign Manager

2007-06-12T23:26:00.001-05:00

I had actually composed this about a month ago and delayed posting it. Perhaps it was to let it mature, like a fine wine in the cellar. Suddenly, it seems all the more ripe considering the boot licking someone received last night during various portions of the council meetings. So, for your reading pleasure, I have decided to pop the cork...

------------

Who needs enemies when you have friends like Erik.

Now I know why he wasn't planning on running again. He must have known from the start that he couldn't keep his foot out of his mouth. The following quote could turn out to be something of a hiking boot...

From the Schwieger investigation (See page 30.)...

Mr. Hjelle also makes an interesting statement in response to Mr.Rossbach:"

As a reminder Mr. Copeland is the Councils employee. We have the right to hire and terminate at will. It was our obligation
to verify his credentials, not to city employees who
have personal history, issues and concerns with their
employer. We failed as the hiring body to do our jobs and we allowed the mess to occur."

Let's look at that last statement again."We failed as the hiring body to doour jobs and we allowed the mess to occur." (By the way, I added the emphasis.)

Since it is the majority of the council that sets the direction, it appears above that erik the great is admitting that the three musketeers failed to do their job. And now, even erik feels that the situation with our interim city manager is a mess.

I think rebecca needs a new campaign manager. I'm not sure erik is doing so well in that capacity, choking on his size 11s.

------- Product Announcement --------

2007-06-07T20:13:00.000-05:00

We have something for some of you councilmen and women, mayors, town boards, selectmen -- any petty tyrant who fears democracy! Don't play for peanuts with those narrow conservation ~~scams~~ products.

Be the first to get one or more of our new, general purpose

Arrogance Easements ^tm

Afraid someone will be elected by more than 12% of the voters and override your wisdom? Want to appeal to every narrow interest?

Arrogance Easements ^tm

are the product for you! Just pay us $___,___,___.__ ¹ per narrowly won vote now, and we will invest it in a very safe place.

If the statesmanlike choice only you are qualified to make is ever overturned by some future partisan hack, we will sue them bloody! ²

Call now, be the first!

Offered by CityHall Title, Inc.
Because we have the time, and you have the money

^1. Our ~~sales~~ legal rep Chadwick Limes is standing by to negotiate your very special price.
^2. Subject to losing if some actual law applies.

Total: $6,658.08

2007-05-23T06:31:00.000-05:00

First Month of Fees for "Investigator": $519.69*

Second Month of Fees for "Investigator": $815.69**

Third Month of Fees for "Investigator": $3,516.69**

Final month's bill, requiring special city council approval, after you've received the finished "investigative report" $1,806.01***

Hijacking a municipal government to execute your personal vendettas: PRICELESS.

*Check #70316, dated 7/5/06 (in Approval of Claims, 7/10/06 council meeting packet p. 36)

**Check # 70725, dated 8/29/06 (in Approval of Claims, 9/11/06 council meeting packet p. 40) for "Investigation - June" and "Investigation - July"

*** The approval was added to the agenda of the 9/25/06 meeting as item N1, "Legal Costs in Excess of $5,000," as you can see in the minutes. Cave made a motion to authorize payment of the bill, Longrie seconded, and only Juenemann voted Nay. It was paid by check #71028, dated 10/10/06 (listed in the Approval of Claims in the 10/23/06 council meeting packet, page 16).

Not-So-Secret Agenda

2007-05-21T10:20:00.000-05:00

The Schwieger Report, which is now part of the public record on account of the related court proceedings, is full of whoppers. But of all of them, I think this is my favorite -- it is found right at the top of page 60:

Ms. Le and many of her supporting witnesses throughout this investigation have tried to make this an investigation of Mr. Copeland, and secondarily, an investigation of the new Council Members and Mayor.

Let's break that down. Schwieger claims to be performing "an investigation of hostile work environment claims made by Sherrie Le" (page one). She reported that the hostile work environment was due to Mr. Copeland, the new Council Members, and Mayor. But Schwieger takes umbrage at various witnesses who assumed he would be investigating the people allegedly responsible for the hostile environment.

Clearly, Schwieger recognized that he had been given a different mandate when Copeland hired him. The "investigate her complaint" story just was a cover -- his real job was to investigate the complainant, to give Copeland a rudimentary paper trail for her firing -- and Schwieger seems remarkably surprised that not everyone was in on the secret, including Le herself.

A Rumor About Hot Dogs

2007-05-18T00:05:00.000-05:00

Dear Rebecca Cave:

I heard a rumor the other day.

The rumor is that hot dogs are made by sweeping the stuff up off of the floor of the meatpacking plant and throwing it into sausage casing. Kind of makes you sick to your stomach, doesn't it.

I heard another rumor.

As a council member, you are supposed to hold your office with some integrity. No, that's not a rumor. Here is your rumor...In the Schweigert investigation (see page 46), you were spreading juicy salacious rumors about Ms. Le, the sort of projection that reveals a lot about the gossiper. Your lack of integrity makes me sick.

I heard another rumor.

This one was something about me voting for you in the last election. Bleah!! I just threw up.

Funny what happens when one tries to digest a Schweigert investigation.

Good Luck in November Rebecca!

Shameless image stealing

2007-05-10T08:56:00.000-05:00

Happened to see this at FireDogLake. Thought we could use it for something...

Erik, Put That Rock Down

2007-05-01T11:31:00.000-05:00

In last year's background report, we learned that city manager Copeland had a record of failing to pay his property taxes on time. More recently, we heard about city employment attorney Bethel being late to pay his taxes as well. And today we see on Maplewood Voices another nugget — apparently Mayor Longrie herself was, shall we say, less than timely in paying for her own bills for ads in city publications (or perhaps she negotiated net 360 terms on that first invoice).

So I guess you can see why the mayor, looking around at all those brittle glass walls, would ask Erik Hjelle if he might stop and think before throws any more accusations about delinquent payments around. Who knows what other news he might break in the process?

Gas Guzzler

2007-04-26T16:57:00.001-05:00

	Dale gets subtle... let's listen in
(Okay, what's this about?)

Friends

2007-04-25T22:32:00.000-05:00

Who needs enemies when you have friends like these...

Are things so boring in Roseville that a couple of their residents feel compelled to cross the border and meddle in our affairs? Or is it that they have made a big enough mess of their city that they want to come and mess up ours?

In doing a little googling on the suspects at another site, I came across this nugget. Seems that the City of Maplewood is now allowing some sort of dual citizenship. Evidently our Roseville Treasurer friend was able to vote in at least one of our previous elections.

What a great citizen. Doing his constitutional "duty" twice. First he dutied on Roseville. Now he is dutying on Maplewood.

Where's the Border Patrol when we really need them?

Ostriches & Their Queen

2007-04-23T20:08:00.000-05:00

Queen Diana the ostrich herder.

Has a nice ring to it, doesn't it? After the last Mayor's forum (see the notes at Maplewood Voices), apparently the moniker fits.

At the same time that her minions fight like heck to keep their heads buried in the sand when it comes such new-fangled things such as voice recording, the Queen is busy making up constitutional law.

While I have not met Ms. Flister, I could imagine scenarios where the recording of the meetings could be a nuisance, especially if they have not been recorded before. However, I do not understand what these people are afraid of? I challenge any of the ostriches to pull their heads out of the sand long enough to put in a data practices act and listen to the recording yourself. Then and only then can you try to tell us that Ms. Flister alters the recording in any way. Of course, someone else will have to relay this challenge to the ostriches as I am sure they are completely terrified of something as scary as the Internet.

One person that could relay the challenge is the Queen of the ostriches. That being Queen Diana. And what is it that makes her Queen? She not only shepherds the ostriches by helping them to keep their heads buried and keeps them safe from bad people like Ms. Flister and Mr. Nephew, but she is so much more powerful than just that.

In fact, Queen Diana is so powerful that constitutional rights do not apply to her. It seems fairly clear from the city attorney (whom the Queen herself helped hire) that Ms. Flister has every right to record the meetings. In fact, Ms. Flister apparently was kind enough to relent a bit by turning off the recorder at various times. However, that was not enough. The ostriches, er people, were still uncomfortable. Perhaps they were afraid that somehow, their heads would become exposed. The Queen would have none of that, regardless of the constitutional rights that were at stake. What Queen Diana wants, she gets. Especially when it comes to the comforts of her herd...

Found in Translation

2007-04-14T11:46:00.000-05:00

Hjelle in the City News: "Reality is a good judge, second only to the decision of voters!"

Translation: "I think it's more important to win votes than to tell the truth!"

Decision time

2007-04-13T23:51:00.000-05:00

It's Saturday morning, pretty late. But, you're up.

You have some coffee. Maybe some of that pizza on the counter.
Go out on the porch, get the mail...mm... robins are here.

You take the May Maplewood City News into the bathroom, read a little.

Things are moving...

Stay with comfort?

It's decision time!

Recycle!

Today's matinee feature...

2007-04-11T11:16:00.000-05:00

Tilt! A Victoria Crossing adventure

(no, not that one)

Starring

with Don's compañero,

the incomparable Princesa Diana

Subtext

2007-04-11T10:39:00.000-05:00

Using secret, advanced subvocalization-discernment technology, lent to What's Left of Maplewood by a confidential source, we were able to eavesdrop on a number of comments that were almost said aloud during the Monday workshop on conservation easements. Naturally we wanted to share them with our readers, since we feel these unstated remarks really fill in some gaps in the context of the whole meeting.

Rebecca Cave: What great turnout! Gosh, thanks everyone for coming to my campaign rally! Those postcards were a great idea, Diana.

Diana Longrie: In case any of you residents forgot all those rumors from the last election cycle, where you heard about sinister elements of the city council who were plotting to pave all of Maplewood's open space and sell the parks to developers with plans to build low income high rises . . . well, we just wanted you to remember them.

Erik Hjelle: Diana promised me this wouldn't cost the city any money. D'oh! I wonder if I can change my vote.

Will Rossbach: What the hell is going on? Did I miss a meeting or a vote about this?

Greg Copeland: Don't you remember that meeting we had at Rebecca's house where we decided what to do? Oh, wait, we didn't invite you.

It all makes more sense now, doesn't it?

More Fear on the Horizon

2007-04-09T10:40:00.000-05:00

Has the time come again when we should be running to the basement? Are some dark and scaring things lurking on the horizon for tonight's meeting? The questions that linger have to do with the two candidates that are being interviewed for the Police Civil Service Commission opening. Is this a chance for the three mouseketeers to further politicize the business of the city?

Interesting, the two candidates that are up for consideration tonight...

Mr. Bartol we have seen before in his business concerning the Gladstone redevelopment as well as a short fill-in stint on the council. There are times that he has appeared to be aligned with the fabulous threesome. Also, there has been some mention of possible Open Meeting Law improprieties. Could these simply be the newbie in him? On the flip side, he has appeared at times to be more moderate and wanting to do what is right. I am not sure I would want to take a risk with such an important position to find out where his true sensibilities lie.

The other candidate appears to be a bit of an unknown, at least to some of us. Ms. Liddell's name has not come up in relation to the council or any of it's members. But that doesn't necessarily bode well. Could she be another Cave-like puppet? Or is she a genuinely interested citizen wanting take care of the city in an ethical manner?

Stay tuned. But keep the basement door open.

Left with Lingering, and Unsettling, Questions

2007-04-07T19:35:00.000-05:00

When I read this article about a mix-up in a movie theater, it somehow called to mind the first time I attended a Maplewood City Council meeting.

That Pesky Open Meeting Law Again

2007-04-04T16:18:00.001-05:00

I noticed something subtly new on the Maplewood website today. In the past, when there have been closed sessions for the city council to discuss legal matters, we've usually had a guessing game to figure out which lawsuit was being discussed, for example by looking up the biographies of the attorneys involved to figure out their specialties (labor law, land use, etc.) and comparing those to the known city lawsuits.

For example, you can still see the agenda of the 6 PM closed session of January 22nd, which simply says as its purpose: "Discuss Pending Litigation with Pam VanderWeil, Chuck Bethel, H. Alan Kantrud." The other 5 PM closed session on the same day similarly identifies its purpose: "Discuss Pending Litigation with John Baker and H. Alan Kantrud."

Today, for the first time, I see the header for the upcoming closed session identify the topic: "Closed Session - City Council - Discuss Pending Litigation,Le vs City of Maplewood: Chuck Bethel, H. Alan Kantrud, Julie Fleming Wolfe." I think that this specificity was missing for this meeting the last time I looked at the city meeting calendar.

Why the change? Maybe someone recently took another look at the open meeting law (Minnesota Statute Chapter 13D). Court decisions have allowed limited attorney-client privilege exceptions to the open meeting law, in order to permit confidential discussion of legal strategies about threatened or pending cases. The legislature's guide to the open meeting law states (p. 8),

In order to close a meeting under the attorney-client privilege exception, the governing body must give a particularized statement describing the subject to be discussed. A general statement that the meeting is being closed to discuss pending or threatened litigation is not sufficient.

In other words, each one of those past meeting announcements/agendas that just identified "pending litigation" as the topic appears to be a violation of the open meeting law.

How many violations? Here are the four specific instances I can find still on the Maplewood website just now, at least before someone goes back to change them (something we've seen this administration do before):

January 22, 2007, 6 PM
January 22, 2007, 5 PM
January 8, 2007, 5 PM
December 18, 2006, 5 PM

I tried to find examples of closed meeting agendas from the previous councils and the previous city attorneys, but the city only has agendas back as far as 2005 and in that year there don't appear to be any closed meetings. I guess we didn't used to have so many lawsuits that needed discussing.

Edit, 4/5: A December 11, 2006, special meeting perhaps needs to be added to the list as well.

Ironic Double Standards

2007-03-29T15:06:00.000-05:00

Earlier this week I went to the court hearing in the Banick lawsuit against the city. You've probably read the report at Maplewood Voices already, and I wrote up some serious thoughts at my campaign blog (and I am working on another entry there), but there's a side observation that seems to belong here on WLOM: The same city that argues in the CoPar case that it should not be held against them that they didn't give CoPar the formal notice in writing that seems mandated by statute, in this case was making a big whiny to-do about how the Police Civil Service Commission didn't properly give them a copy of its order in writing.

Consider the parallels: in the CoPar case, the city argues that the meeting was televised and recorded and a copy was given to the CoPar reps, who were also present at the meeting, plus the minutes were posted to the city website, so obviously CoPar knew the city's decision.

In the PCSC's case, the meeting was televised (for the first time), recorded (the original recordings I presume are in the city's possession), two city attorneys (Kantrud and Bethel) were present when the discussion took place and motion to issue the order was unanimously approved, and the staff liason was there as well taking the minutes. I attended the meeting, and personally saw the commissioners signing their order to give it to city staff. I'm not sure what more they could have been expected to do, unless to go and mail it to Copeland or the Mayor, registered mail with return receipt requested.

In any case, it's funny. In two similar circumstances, the city is asking the courts to reach two completely opposite conclusions, in order to give the city what it wants in both cases.

Caught Sneaking Out

2007-03-28T15:13:00.000-05:00

I've been caught! Someone told me yesterday that it was observed that I slipped out of Monday's city council meeting a little after 11:00. So I may as well come clean and admit it.

I confess, I was exhausted after a day of heavy box-lifting at work, I hadn't had any dinner (unless you count the tiny bag of Fritos and a handful of candy from the vending machines in the hall -- which for some reason everyone at the meeting seemed determined to ask me to share!), and I was still getting over that nasty cold that put me out of commission a couple days after the last council meeting. I realized my vision was just swimming as I tried to pay attention to a powerpoint presentation, so I may as well head home, since the curfew had been waived and, judging from the remaining agenda items, it looked like it might be hours before everyone went home.

My one regret was that I knew our Hjellebear had added an item to council presentations, something about taxes, and I figured that might be fun. DrawnLeftward, who was watching from home, tells me it was actually about the former mayor's property taxes.

Did I miss any other thrilling developments?

City Pages Story

2007-03-15T11:16:00.000-05:00

In case you haven't seen it already, be sure to check out this week's City Pages cover story about Maplewood. Note too that City Pages offers a comment thread for the article, if you have thoughts to share.

Remind you of anyone?

2007-03-15T09:32:00.000-05:00

Eli at FiredogLake writes in "It's our due"

No other quote sums up the Republican attitude towards government more perfectly, not even Cheney's other one (you know which). For them, governing is not a responsibility, it's not a duty, it's not a service. It's a reward for winning. Republicans look at the American government, at the prodigious capabilities and resources it has built up over the past 200+ years, and all they can think about is how to use it to their own advantage. How they can reward their friends, settle scores with their enemies, and consolidate power so they can go on partying forever. It never even occurs to them that the government was designed for other purposes, like looking out for the disadvantaged, or protecting the environment, or catching criminals.

Sound familiar?

Live blog the council meeting

2007-03-12T19:49:00.000-05:00

Chad Lemmons bingo is over for tonight.

Use the rest of this open thread to live blog the council meeting

Cautious Optimism

2007-03-08T18:33:00.000-06:00

The packet for this coming Monday's city council meeting is now available on the Maplewood city website.

Three items immediately stand out to me for particular attention:

Introduction of Robert Mittet, newly appointed Finance and Administration Manager (Item G2) — Given the recent departure of Ms. Bauman, and the extension of the application period due apparently to a lack of qualified applicants under the original deadline, it's good to see that someone is being hired to oversee city finances.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Item K1) — As I discussed over at my campaign blog, the city council retreat seemed to result in a compromise for the Gladstone-related comprehensive plan amendment. As a result, the issue is going to be up for consideration again.
Request for council approval to hire a consultant for the South Maplewood Moratorium Study (Item L5) — I'm on the record saying this is a good idea, since I joined a group of citizens asking the council to do this. I'm very pleased to see this show up on the agenda, and hope the firm (assuming the council approves its hiring) will be ready to show up and join in the community meeting at Carver School the following night.

We'll have to see how it all plays out, but these all represent steps in the right direction, in my view.

Agree? Disagree? That's why we have comments. :)

Dessert

2007-03-01T11:20:00.000-06:00

Ahhh! It tastes so good...Most of the time!

Dessert arrived right on schedule again on Monday night. As usual, some of the best was left for last. For me, the rush of sweetness came while watching our brilliant city manager stammer away after being called on the carpet for asking that our auditors perform some of the very work that they are auditing. He had NO response when Rossbach asked him if this was wrong. He could have at least justified the decision. Almost any reasonable response might have worked. Instead, we are left with, (as the blog founders put it) our cartoons.

Hmmmm! Haven't I seen this auditing stuff somewhere before?

Now, I am sure that the firm in question is highly trustworthy and we really have little to worry about. But, as another reader noted in an earlier post...What happened to the nearly 30 days notice given by Ms. Bauman? What was Mr. Brilliant doing in that time that he couldn't either (A) hire a replacement or (B) find another firm/individual to perform the temporary duties? As I understand it, a hire is imminent. If so, then why not wait? Otherwise, let's at least provide the appearance of propriety and hire a separate firm to do the work.

This little morsel of goodness raises some serious questions about the abilities of the three musketeer's hired gun. Mr. Brilliant obviously does not understand the idea of "conflict of interest". Neither is our fine city manager a student of recent history. If either of those were the case, he would understand how important it is to at least provide that appearance I mentioned above. Serious things can happen when the auditors audit the work that they performed.

Another thing that comes to mind is how the current city manager is no better than the one he replaced in at least one facet. That being his perceived willingness to take the easy road. I actually thought that Fursman either needed to be more willing to make tough choices or move on. I saw his push for full-time fire fighters as a case of him not wanting to do the hard work of recruiting additional PPC fire fighters. After all, why do the hard work when you can just go to the taxpayers for more money? Did Mr. Brilliant just not want to put the effort in to finding someone else to do the temporary accounting work that needed to be done? After all, the auditors are there. They are only one phone call away. And it is a small amount of work. For me, this is just the beginning. What other shortcuts are we not seeing?

The streets are still getting plowed. And the shoplifters are still being arrested. However, the foundation may be starting to crumble...Like the crust on my strawberry cheesecake.

A Council Meeting Best Served Cold

2007-02-27T10:04:00.000-06:00

The big news at last night's council meeting was of course the Gladstone redevelopment plan, which was put on ice by the council minority. The 4-1 supermajority required for amendments to the comprehensive land use plan gave Rossbach and Juenemann a rare opportunity to flex their governance muscles.

But let's not lose sight of the majority's continuing commitment to vendetta. At the tail end of the meeting, the votes were tallied for the Police Civil Service Commission seat of Debra Birkholtz. No other eligible candidates applied, so it was aye or nay votes on whether to reappoint Ms. Birkholtz. It should come as no surprise that the nays carried it 3 to 2. Evidently a record of holding state law above the council majority's longing for vengeance meant that she made it onto the enemies list herself. I guess this means the seat remains vacant until the council majority can recruit a more malleable individual to fill it and do their bidding.

This Communication May Be Monitored

2007-02-26T16:43:00.000-06:00

One of the duties of the new Public Safety über-Manager: "reports all contacts and communications with members of collective bargaining units to City Manager."

At the present time, all city employees belong to collective bargaining units except the über-managers and pay-per-call firefighters. So if this person has a conversation with any full-time firefighter or police officer, he must report it to the city manager. The language doesn't limit this to communications about city business, either, so it sounds like private e-mails or social contact with city employees (say, chatting with a staffer from a different city department at a church service or neighborhood gathering) must be reported to Mr. Copeland.

Is this a standard clause for managerial positions?

Since communications and contact with NON-union city employees (such as pay-per-call firefighters) is A-OK, no reporting necessary, it sure sounds like the idea is just to limit and monitor contact between this new manager and union members. Maybe Copeland is afraid the new manager would want to join a bargaining unit him/herself?

Where will all the applicants line up?

2007-02-24T14:44:00.000-06:00

(click for a larger image)

Crystal has 28 sworn officers.
Police Chief salary range $79-97,000.

Maplewood has 52 sworn officers.
Police Chief's boss's salary range: to $85,000.

Agenda Addition: Item L5

2007-02-23T15:40:00.001-06:00

The latest revision to the agenda and council packet for this coming Monday's meeting has this addition under "New Business": "Authority to Contract Additional Services from City Auditor."

Since Assistant Finance Director Gayle Bauman departed this past week, our city's finance department now appears to have four employees (a secretary, a payroll technician, and two accounting technicians). With a city budget around $30 million, there are apparently a few financial management tasks that do still need to be taken care of here and there. Copeland's memo to the council recommends hiring our current independent auditors to shoulder some of the burden:

Those additional services are as follows:

1. Preparation of the 2006 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report - $8,000 - $9,000

2. Implementation of Government Auditing Standards Board Statement, GASB,44
Economic Condition Reporting - $1,000 - $2,000

3. Workpaper/schedule preparation for the 2006 Audit – Not to exceed $5,000.

Recommendation: Adopt a motion giving the City Manager authority to contract with the City’s Auditor, HLB Tautges Redpath for additional services up to the amount of $16,000.

I don't know if it's standard practice in city government to hire your auditor as a financial consultant to perform additional services. I seem to recall the mixing of auditing work with other kinds of contractual services has led to problems for some entities in the past, at least in other contexts (the name Arthur Anderson springs to mind).

I mean, does it make sense to have the same firm both prepare an annual report and then audit it? Will we at least be reassured that individual staff from this firm who audit the books will be different from the ones who prepare them?

In the more than two weeks since Bauman announced her resignation, was Copeland unable to shop for bids from multiple accounting firms to offer to the city council for interim financial assistance? Or were none willing to bid?

Welcome City Pages Blotter readers

2007-02-20T13:32:00.000-06:00

Welcome!

For those readers who insist on knowing what we are talking about: City Pages 2/20 Blotter entry

MINNESOTA BLOG OF THE DAY

Frostbrand, drawnLeftward, and LookingNorth follow the strange municipal politics in the eastern suburbs at What's Left of Maplewood (MN).

It's not too late!

2007-02-18T13:37:00.000-06:00

Forgot to apply by the Feb 9 deadline?

Don't worry, you still can - and now there is no deadline!

FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION MANAGER City of Maplewood Starting Salary up to $85,000 The City of Maplewood as an immediate opening for an experienced manager to oversee City's Finance & Admin Mgmt group. Provides oversight of Public Works; Inspections, Planning & Building Ops; and IT Depts.
as well as leadership of Finance Dept. This position is Chief Financial
Policy Advisor providing innovative initiatives & accountable
service delivery. Email resumes for priority consideration toharriet.rydel@ ci.maplewood.mn.us or visit our website at www.ci.maplewood.mn.us for application packet or call (651) 249-2051. EOE
(Star Tribune - Jobs online)

The Out of Towners

2007-02-17T12:20:00.000-06:00

(click image for a bigger view)

earlier plot version

Godwin's Law

2007-02-16T00:17:00.000-06:00

On August 4th, I made this prediction: "Sometime in the next six months, Hjelle & Co. will publicly compare their opponents to Nazis. It's the inevitable next step."

I almost was proven wrong, but at the 11th hour one of the council majority's proxies delivered the goods at the Mayor's Forum on February 3rd, in the approving presence of both Mayor Longrie and Mr. Hjelle, neither of whom voiced any disagreement with the speaker. (Mayor Longrie even stepped up to help clarify his remarks, and gave him the floor to have the last word after the meeting was scheduled to end.)

Why did I say it was the inevitable next step? Well, it's predicted by Godwin's Law, AKA Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies. Godwin was talking about internet discussions, but his observation has been generalized to other public discussions as well. The longer a debate goes on, observed Godwin, the more likely someone will make a comparison to Nazis, regardless of how absurd such a comparison may be. Back in August, I figured that calling something really profoundly American -- such as exercising our first amendment rights to criticize our government -- "un-American," as Hjelle did, is a warning sign that a Nazi comparison can't be far away.

A widely accepted corollary of Godwin's Law is that once somebody brings up the Nazis, the argument is pretty much over, and the person who invoked the Nazi comparison almost certainly lost it. It's an emotional outburst, more of an expletive than an argument. The person making the comparison thinks it is very compelling and rhetorically forceful, but he usually winds up sounding silly, as he seems to argue that something like a citizen taping a public meeting deserves the same level of moral condemnation as mass murder and genocide.

There are exceptions, of course. For example, if you're talking about mass internment of political dissidents, or the extermination of entire groups on account of religion or ethnicity, a comparison to Nazis isn't absurd.

But talking about Maplewood? Saying (I got a copy of the audio via data practices to make sure I quote this accurately), "if we fall for this baloney, these organizations [i.e., citizens who criticize the council majority] with their computers will raze our cities just like Berlin in the early 1940's" -- well, that's just the kind of hyperbole Godwin's Law is talking about.

And you may ask yourself, “Well, how did I get here?”

2007-02-14T08:10:00.000-06:00

This all started as a hobby.

Early last year, citizens of Maplewood starting seeing signs that things were not right in city hall. I went to my first-ever city council meeting. My first impression was that this council was, to put it mildly, dysfunctional.

When drawnLeftward and I started this blog, we saw it as a sort of entertainment project. Admittedly, making fun of a city council that displayed a serious commitment to acts of self-parody wasn't the most challenging project in the world, but we thought we'd give it a whirl. The new council majority seemed to invite ridicule, and as polite Minnesotans we could hardly refuse them.

As the year went on I found myself drawn more and more seriously into the issues of Maplewood — both the details (things like the budget) and the bigger picture (things like the fundamental questions of good government and respect for process, and the implications beyond Maplewood of council actions like their undermining of civil service protections). We've also had an increasing number of readers and commenters.

Now it's 2007. In Maplewood, that means it's an election year. After a year of escalating bafflement as the Gang of Three unveiled one travesty of governance after another (and we at WLOM did our best to poke fun at them), we're now in a year where something can change. A new member can be elected to the council, to change the balance of power and start restoring reason to city hall.

I'd like to be that person. You've come to know me as Frostbrand, but my name in real life is John Nephew, and I will be running for Maplewood City Council. You can read more about me and my campaign at www.johnnephew.com.

What does this mean for What's Left of Maplewood? Frostbrand will still be on the masthead as a contributor, but I won't be able to write or comment as much as I have this past year. That's one of the reasons we invited LookingNorth to join us, to help keep the conversation going here.

When I came home from my first city council meeting, I went looking on the internet for a place where people might be talking about the situation in Maplewood, as I had become accustomed to finding blogs all across the political spectrum on state and national issues. There didn't seem to be such a place, so we decided to create it. I enjoy writing here, with a mix of whimsy and serious discussion, and I hope that it will continue to flourish while I'm busy trying to win an election.

The Double Standard

2007-02-12T22:21:00.000-06:00

I was beginning to worry that we would have to continue beating the dead horse of off-agenda 2 AM appointments for lack of anything new to write about. Then, along comes a council meeting to provide fresh fodder. Monday night's theme is something that has been touched on before. That is, the mayor's double standard. Sometimes subtle. Sometimes not. The double standard reared it's ugly head on at least two occasions tonight.

Since when is it OK ignore the rules of civility posted on the council meeting agenda? Well, apparently it is OK to ignore those rules when the anti-civility of dave h is directed at people who threaten the mayor in some way. Apparently, Mr. Nephew & Ms. Flister make the mayor sweat. Why? Is it because they provide a very real threat to expose her for the vindictive nepotistic agenda that she is? Evidently, as long as the mayor's underarms are moist, it is OK for a citizen to launch a personal attack on other citizens.

The second hideous double standard head-rearing came at the end of the meeting. (It seems as if alot of the good stuff is saved for the end...Kind of like dessert!) The council (this very council) has been doing commission appointments the same way for some time. Namely, taking the candidates that are presented by a certain point in time and working with what is there. All of a sudden, we are going to change the routine. We as a council majority don't like what we have for candidates. So, let's hold the process until we find someone who will do what we want. Never mind that we haven't held the process up before. We're going to now. Sometimes I wish Rossbach would call it for what it is. That being naked political maneuvering. I couldn't help but laugh at queen diana calling (pleading?!?) for additional applicants, hoping that they will find someone who will fit the majority's agenda. Since Rossbach won't do it, I will. Queen diana, how stupid do you think we are? It is painfully obvious you are still trying to find some way to stick it to Banick. Get over it. Admit you are wrong. Quit wasting precious city resources in pursuit of a legal action you have obviously lost...

Rules? We don't need no stinkin' rules

2007-02-10T19:40:00.000-06:00

We moderate comments. A bunch of questionable ones have built up over the last couple weeks until one of us had time to deal with them. This turned into a good opportunity to review why we are moderating and what the rules are. Side note - the new Blogger makes it even harder to edit a submitted comment, so the choice on any one comment is now "all or none".

One from the troll alleges criminal behavior on the part of a private citizen, not even from Maplewood. Rejected.

One from a not-troll has some good council bashing, but it is so tangled up with allegations against some mid-level Maplewood employees that it could not be saved even if we could easily edit. Rejected.

One with criminal allegations so obscure it is not clear if it is troll or not-troll. In the end it didn't matter. Rejected.

One from a not-troll making campaign finance allegations against Copeland with a general link to the campaign finance board webpage. Rejected.

One from Barbara wondering why it is not okay for her to question why Diana would leave a perfectly good job at Target. Good question. Accepted.

One from the troll on a fishing expedition. Rejected.

So here are some rules:

No allegations of illegal behavior without some sort of credible proof. If you have that for a new crime you should think about going to the police.

Nothing critical of private citizens, especially if they have not gone out of their way to be in the public eye.

Nothing critical of individual city employees who are not usually in the public eye. The line is fuzzy. Live with it.

Finally, let us be clear that this blog is private property; it's our back yard that we have invited you to come and play in. In the end, we make and interpret the rules, and can change them isf we wish, or choose not to apply them to ourselves. We are not likely to be perfectly consistent, especially since there are three of us and we will each see things a little differently when we happen to be making judgement calls.

If you have a burning need to communicate something to the world and we reject your comment, keep in mind that you can write letters to the editor, post to other discussion forums on the internet, or even create your own blog with your own rules.

Reader Mail: Check Out the Ads

2007-02-08T14:57:00.000-06:00

A reader sent us the following link and comments:

Subject: check out the ads here

http://www.mnrpa.org/jobs.html

Check out both Brooklyn Park vs. Maplewood. Not only are the styles and details different, Maplewood is offering more (multiply hourly by 2080 for annual salaries).

I just thought I'd add this to the mix for your readers to see if they chose to check it out.

Keep up the good work. I lived in Maplewood many years ago and thought it had finally crawled out of the dark ages.

Looks like Brooklyn Park's job has a slightly higher range of salary ($51,540 to $60,636 versus $44,616-$59,800 for the Maplewood job, using the 2080 x hourly rate calculation).

Boy is there a world of difference between the minimum qualifications, though -- Maplewood wants only BA in Recreation or 2 years of rec programming experience, and a valid driver's license; Brooklyn Park requires the BA (and prefer post-graduate work as well) plus at least five years of experience, etc.

Trouble

2007-02-07T12:46:00.000-06:00

It has taken a bit for me to put fingers to keyboard. I am not sure why. After the couple of posts this AM, I think I have found the answer. It is that I am troubled. Not in a Mr. Brilliant/troll/diana sort of way. No, I am good about taking my meds. Instead, I am troubled by the confusion that reigns amongst these parties. It seems that they stir up confusion in an attempt to obfuscate the truth on important issues.

As the reader pointed out in the post from this morning, Diana was, according to her, given bad advice from the attorney when in fact the attorney was counseling them correctly about the open meeting issues. It would be interesting to try to figure out where the advice went wrong. Why have the other parties to the possible Open Meeting Law violation not cried "foul advice" like our fair mayor? Based on the way that the threesome/foursome has been interpreting the rules of law lately, could they have misinterpreted the law as it was put before them by our previous city attorney & city manager? I am not sure how they could have misinterpreted it. I am not a rocket scientist. I read thru it. It was pretty clear to me.

To the point of what is beginning to REALLY trouble me...

Item 1: The judge at the Banick trial made it very apparent that the city will lose the case with Banick if it continues down the path.

Item 2: We have the Police Civil Service Commission exercising their legal jurisdiction over the process, contradicting the wishes of the City -- well really not the City, more the wishes of the puppet city manager and the puppet's hand, the mayor. I have not read the legalese regarding the Civil Service Rules. However, it sounds like, very similar to the open meeting law, a pretty clear case.

The troubling part is that we now seem to have the city attorney (Kantrud) as well as another appointed attorney (Bethel) ignoring the storm that is at the doorstep. "We can beat it out" they say. Of course, that's what many said before Katrina.

So, at what point do said attorneys start "doing the right thing"? At what point do they quit wasting taxpayer/League dollars and make the City Manager/Mayor admit that the city has made a mistake? I thought we were paying the Kantrud & Bethel to be the voice of reason, not a couple of trouble making pot stirrers.

Reader Mail: Last Saturday's Pioneer Press

2007-02-07T09:08:00.000-06:00

A reader submitted this piece our Yahoo! account on Monday evening -- our apologies for not getting it posted sooner.

---
1) So this Saturday in the Pioneer Press, Longrie is mad at Schultz for releasing his report to Maplewoodvoices.com. But she is WRONG. Maplewoodvoices.com asked for a copy from Schultz and he declined, citing ethical and confidentiality reasons. Rossbach provided a copy of the report, not Schultz. Longrie is crazy and the Pioneer Press needs to be notified of this fact for a correction or a follow-up.

2) Also, the Pioneer Press article from Saturday states "Longrie attributes the e-mails to wrong advice from Maplewood's former city attorney and says council members immediately complied with the law once it was clarified to them." She's talking about emails between council members that could be viewed in violation of open meeting laws. I'm not sure, but didn't Fursman warn them about this? Wasn't that one of the "run ins" he had with the gang of three leading up to his firing? I can't recall, but I'm thinking the law firm was saying the same thing. Do we know what their legal opinion REALLY was, not what Longrie CLAIMS it was. Again, the woman is nuts in a mental way. Talk about selective memory. Again, if this is indeed how I remember it, I think we need to let the Pioneer Press know so they can follow-up or run a correction.

Hopefully the readers of this blog have better memories than Longrie and her goofy minions.

A Step Toward Justice

2007-02-07T08:58:00.000-06:00

Monday evening, the Police Civil Service Commission met for the first time in front of cameras for live cable broadcast. The hot topic of the evening was former Deputy Chief John Banick. Their decided to assert their statutory powers over hiring and firing of police officers, by ordering Banick reinstated as a lieutenant, the position he held before his promotion to the Deputy Chief position.

This morning's Pioneer Press has an article about it you can read online, in case it's not in your edition of the paper or you don't see it in hard copy.

It sounds like Banick may not actually be on the job for a while, since the city asserts that the Commission lacks the authority that statute clearly grants them. I imagine that the Commission's ruling can only help Banick's court case, however.

Ch-Ch-Changes

2007-02-02T15:29:00.000-06:00

Changes are coming to What's Left of Maplewood!

First of all, we apologize for the "radio silence" this past week. Blogger now belongs to Google, and they are forcing migration to the "new Blogger," a process that was giving us some problems in the last few days. We think we're all set on the new system now, but please be patient with any difficulties we might have, or any technical things that may have changed that we don't even know about yet.

Second, DrawnLeftward and I are pleased to welcome another name to our masthead. LookingNorth may already be a familiar name to you, from the discussions in our comments and his frequent missives that have been topics unto themselves; now he's an official contributor. We're looking forward to his continuing commentary on Maplewood politics, and the "south leg" perspective he brings.

Finally, we are expecting to make a significant change in comment management in the near future. Up until now, we have allowed unregistered, anonymous commenters. What we would like to do is to require registration, as some of our frequent visitors have requested. We would not force people to reveal their real-world identities; rather, commenters would log in with Google and write under unique handles (like Frostbrand, drawnLeftward, and LookingNorth). We think this would make it a lot easier for everyone to follow and participate in the discussions.

As usual, we welcome your feedback in our comments or by e-mail to WhatsLeftOfMaplewood@yahoo.com.

When will you apply?

2007-01-27T20:26:00.000-06:00

What more is there to say?

LookingNorth: Here we go again!

2007-01-24T17:27:00.000-06:00

The latest from our neighbor LookingNorth:

One more time, we see the double standard at work...

From Maplewood Voices:

"Mr. Rossbach and Ms. Juenemann voted against adopting the 2007 labor contracts as the only information they were supplied upon which to base the required council ratification was a list of the unions involved."

On the one hand, the queen mayor insists on having more info on the DeSoto project before they move forward. Yet, when it comes time for the labor contract ratification, it is OK for our formerly long-time unemployed city manager to provide a shred of barely related info on the subject. A nice touch was trying to hang the stink of waiting for their increases on Rossbach.

Does she simply have a memory issue (that could be taken care of with drugs)? Or is she really that unethical?

Historical Context: Roseville

2007-01-22T14:57:00.000-06:00

A regular visitor seen at Maplewood city council functions in the past year has been the former mayor of Roseville, Kyzlick-whateverhisnameis. Apparently he's good friends with Mayor Longrie, perhaps something of an advisor or mentor, helping her carry on his idea of how government should be.

So what was he like, when he was running council meetings in Roseville? Sure, you've heard he was a goofball, but did you ever wonder if reality could be as bad as the picture drawn in the media? And exactly how similar is he to our comment troll, as some have suggested?

Well, wonder no more. While you wait for tonight's cable access entertainment, broadcast live from our council chambers, check out this collection archival footage, which a Roseville tipster pointed us to.

LookingNorth Asks, "Why...?"

2007-01-22T14:37:00.000-06:00

A missive from LookingNorth asks why we our elected officials can't seem live up to the example set by our neighbors in Little Canada:

Frostbrand:

Over the weekend, I came across the following article from the Pioneer Press...

http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/local/states/minnesota/counties/ramsey_county/16504010.htm

After reading it, the same thought keeps coming up in my head...

Why?

Why do the band of three need to be so uncooperative? Why can't the mayor be more democratic and less autocratic? And, after a famous line...Why can't we all just get along?

I don't see any 2AM shenanigans. I don't see any numbers doublespeak. All I see is four people having a civil discussion with some logical back-and-forth which includes a civil difference of opinion that was likely resolved within the spirit of the law.

Why can't the band of three follow this example?

Why...?

The Value of a Dollar

2007-01-18T10:16:00.000-06:00

Today we have another guest post, in effect, from LookingNorth:

Frostbrand:

From our troll: "If by Chuck working a $5 million road project around some kid's graduation party, increases the job cost by one cent, Chuck should pay with his job."

From the judge via the Pioneer Press: "...the city could be taking a financial risk by hiring new managers while facing the possibility of having to pay salaries, back pay and damages should it lose the civil case."

It looks to me like the City Manager might be losing his job sooner than we think...

LookingNorth

(aka ChuckingNorth)

Somehow, LookingNorth, I have a suspicion that the Longristas apply different rules to Mr. Copeland and his financial bungling ...

Betrayal

2007-01-17T22:54:00.000-06:00

In the comments of a thread below, our frequent visitor LookingNorth shared a disturbing confession:

PS: Yes, it kills me now to say it. I did vote for Hjelle and Cave. Go ahead Frostbrand and Drawnleftward, ban me from the blog or flog me publically if you like. I probably deserve it.

Neighbor, all joking aside, I don't think you need to worry about drawnLeftward and I doing either one of those things.

Some people, our troll being a convenient example, see politics as a matter of picking a team and then supporting and defending them, even when doing so becomes ludicrous, illogical, and self-contradictory — as it so often has this past year in Maplewood. In their way of thinking, specific issues are really beside the point. The overarching strategy is to separate "us" from "them," and then use that division to push the interests of "us" at the expense of "them.” Thus we see the Longrista troll continually trying to unify critics of Longrie/Cave/Hjelle under a label like "Rossbachians," and telling us that the political victors deserve all the spoils they can take for themselves and their loyalists.

Reality is not so simple. Critics of this city council majority come from all over the political spectrum. I am sure they do NOT have unified views on the many of the specific issues before Maplewood. (Compare the voting correlation of Juenemann and Rossbach to the correlations between members of the Gang of Three, for example.) It's even less likely that they have monolithic views on politics in the world beyond Maplewood city limits.

What the critics do have in common is that they see that the institution of city government is being destroyed, and they are concerned about the process of governance and, in short, the rule of law. The rules by which the city is supposed to govern itself are being ignored and undermined, in big ways and small. We've spent a lot of words in this blog talking about the specific examples.

There's another way of looking at politics, which is to see it as a process of mediating the different and sometimes conflicting interests of citizens. In this point of view, it's not absurd to provide help to someone you know voted against you, or vice versa; nor is it crazy to take a stand against someone's position on one issue, while supporting them on another. Whether you are concerned about lowering taxes, or preserving open space, or encouraging redevelopment, or hiring more police, or reducing the city's payroll — whatever the specific ways that you think the common good can be served — you can unite with people who strongly disagree with your particular goals or priorities when it comes to supporting a framework of governance that is open, inclusive, and accountable.

I wasn't watching that closely at the time, but I don't think the Longrista campaign literature highlighted their wish to dismantle the city staff, ignore state laws they didn't like (such as the Police Civil Service Commission statutes or the open meeting law), pursue personal grudges at taxpayer expense (including the taxpayers of other communities, whose insurance premiums are paying the League of Minnesota Cities' lawyers to defend cases the judges have told us the city will lose), give us the second highest levy increase in the past decade, etc. I mean, it's one thing to vote for Cave because you think she likes preserving parks; it's another to do so knowing that she thought the city council should just ignore state laws that she finds inconvenient.

And how could you know? If someone had told you in late October of 2005 that what we saw in 2006 was Diana Longrie's idea of good governance, would you even have believed it? I don't think I would have.

I think there's a growing number of Maplewood residents who feel a particular bitterness about the state of the city, like LookingNorth — the bitterness of betrayal, of being delivered goods that were not what they thought they were ordering.

Where will you spend yours?

2007-01-12T19:24:00.000-06:00

Copeland headline in the latest city newsletter

What else is there to say?

LookingNorth: Hypocrites & Doozies

2007-01-09T20:27:00.000-06:00

A couple more Monday night missives from our friend LookingNorth...

Subject: Hypocrites All

Frostbrand:

This follows a theme that has developed this past week or so. The threesome find some things more important only when it suits them. Also, when it is convenient, those things that were previously so bloody important are no longer so.

Two examples tonight, come to mind.

The first is diana needing to have all the info in front of her before she make a decision on the $5 million Desoto/Skillman project. However, when Will and Kathy were looking for more details before voting on the budget, then it was not important.

On the other end of the spectrum, hjelle goes ape (again!) when Will brings forth something that was not on the agenda. Where was hjelle's concern for the agenda the night of the 2:00 am stunt?

Is there a picture of the threesome in Webster's next to the word Hypocrite?

It's a really consistent quirk of the Gang of Three and, not so coincidentally, their sock puppet in our comments. When other people want to record meetings, it's totally unacceptable; when the mayor's husband wants to, it's a constitutional right. When a severance package is in Fursman's contract, it's "giving away the farm." When the same terms are in Copeland's package, it's just standard operating procedure. When a previous council and manager raise taxes, it's proof of their fiscal irresponsibility; when this council majority raises taxes even more, it's due to circumstances beyond their control, and they should be cut some slack because they're new. Monday night just gave us more examples to add to an already long list of Official Maplewood Double Standards.

Subject: Doozies

The last two items were doozies.

Does copeland even know what he is talking about when he talks about conflict of interest? It's amazing how he proves almost every week how much of a lackey he really is for the threesome.

And how about diana? Can someone confirm that she actually studied law somewhere in the continental US? Her delusional lines of logic defy belief. That business about the recording and waivers was amazing. Did I miss something or was I hallucinating like her? Dind't boy attorney confirm that the meetings could be recorded? And then she tries to weasel around it. Now I know why I stay up until 1:00 am. The endings are almost always show stoppers.

I might have to start attending more meetings. I would've loved to have been at the Mayor's Forum to see her and copeland stick thier feet in thier mouths. Oh yeah, copeland already has diana's toes in his mouth.

Remind me never to hire her for any of my legal battles.

I have to tell you, I'm honestly torn in my evaluation of Diana. Is she truly mentally muddled as she so often seems to be, or is that just an act to disarm people against her underlying malice and deceit? Even Hjelle can be seen rolling his eyes these days as she goes on and on belaboring one obvious point after another. Does she just love the sound of her own voice, or is she working on some Svengaliesque trick to lull everyone into a suggestible hypnotic state?

Kantrud's problem, of course, was that Longrie hadn't had a chance to tell him ahead of time what she wanted his legal opinion to be, so he naively provided the obvious and straightforward answer to Will's question. Whoops. Pretty funny how she tried to argue that Kantrud's opinion in this case doesn't matter because he hadn't taken time to research it (i.e., consult with Diana off the record and then go and try to find some contorted stretch of legal reasoning to support what she wants his opinion to be).

LookingNorth: Graduations

2007-01-09T19:56:00.000-06:00

It's becoming a bit of a tradition for some of our readers to send us their thoughts during the Monday night council meetings. Sorry I didn't get these posted sooner -- Blogger was down much of today for some kind of maintenance.

So, without further ado, here's some Monday night commentary, from frequent commenter LookingNorth:

Subject: Graduations

The council is back after a seemingly long holiday break. The one work that comes to mind is bittersweet. This comes from Chuck Ahl in action. Why bittersweet you ask? After all, Chuck is very knowledgeable. He is on the ball. He answers every question asked of him. There appears to be no beating around the bush. He seems to know everything and then some in a job that seems to be one of the most complicated in the city. So again, you may ask, why I would be I be bittersweet watching someone who is apparently so good at what he does. Well, that is exactly the source. He is VERY good at what he does. I experience a certain melancholy thinking about what might have been if three people had taken a step back last year and took a more reasonable path to bringing in a new city manager. I can only imagine how efficiently our great city might be running at this time and going forward if Chuck was at the helm. He is someone who appears to understand his place.

He understands that he is here, not for himself, not for the mayor or any other council member for that matter. He is here for US, the citizens.

One example from tonight’s meeting sums up Chuck Ahl. He told all that he wants to see any and all people who are affected by the reconstruction in the Desoto/Skillman area that would like to be heard. In fact he really wants to know, for example, if anyone is having a graduation. If so, he will work around it(!!!!!) What a classy move. This is everything these people should be about!

Contrast that with the sitting city manager. He is there for only one citizen. That being queen Diana. I don’t see the current manager going out of his way to make something like a graduation work for anyone but the one whose feet he kisses.

Chuck is willing to work a $5 million project around someone’s graduation. This is service to the citizens at it’s best! Let’s graduate Chuck Ahl to city manager!

Copeland's Package

2007-01-04T15:28:00.000-06:00

One commenter this morning asked, "How much is Copeland being paid?"

Here's the relevant text Hjelle's motion to hire him (from the minutes on the Maplewood city website):

"Councilmember Hjelle moved under Section 2-101 of the Maplewood City Code, appoint and hire Mr. Copland as the permanent Maplewood City Manager, with 1 year probation, starting tomorrow, at a yearly salary of $85,000 including benefits currently given. The council will give Mr. Copeland a mid-year job performance review no later than June 1, 2007. A salary review will occur after successful completion of an additional job performance review no later than October 31, 2007. After satisfactory completion of his probationary period, Mr. Copeland will be entitled to receive 6 months pay and benefits if terminated by the council for any reason other than cause."

A couple of observations.

1. Previously, the mayor said that Copeland's salary was $78,000, so this permanent appointment came with a generous 9% salary increase.

2. Hjelle implied in his remarks before the motion that by making the appointment probationary for a year, he was giving voters the chance to express their view of the manager in next year's city council elections. However, his actual motion requires that Copeland's probationary status go away before the November elections -- "no later than October 31, 2007."

3. Once they remove the "probationary" tag, Copeland is entitled to the same 6 months' severance package that the Longristas have described as "giving away the farm" when it applied to Fursman.

I wonder if it's coincidence that $85,000 plus half that again for a severance package adds up just about to what Fursman's annual salary was. It's like they want to be able to claim they are saving money, while actually arranging to pay their pal as much as his predecessor for the full year job they can guarantee him, if the next council fires him.

The way around the golden parachute, of course, is for the 2008 council to terminate Copeland for cause. Every instance of his incompetence that citizens document is a tool toward that end.

Where is the Money Going?

2007-01-02T13:22:00.000-06:00

Commenting on my last post, our regular Longrie sock puppet asked, "So where did the money go?" She floated a few theories, but as usual provided no documentation -- they're just the usual Longrie smokescreens (joining the ranks of "I don't believe Bob Cardinal could have written this letter!" and "I never told you to do the background check in-house!" and "I believe that senior managers were planning to organize all along, and it's just coincidence that they did it while I am mayor!").

It's hard to figure out exactly, but we can take a preliminary stab at where the spending increases lie. Looking page 10 of the 2007 draft budget, we can do some simple math to get the changes in total by classification.

In total, spending is increasing by $1,506,390. This is slightly more than the property levy increase (that being $1,443,970), so we can see that it's almost all being put on the shoulders of Maplewood property owners. (Hence the property tax levy is increasing almost twice as much as city spending.)

The spending increase breaks down as follows:

Personnel Services: +$863,770
Commodities: +$13,060
Contractual Services: +$692,540
Capital Outlay and Depreciation: -$118,520
Other Charges: +$55,540

We've been assured that there are huge payroll savings due to getting rid of all these "overpaid" senior managers, on the order of half a million dollars or more. Over and over, we've been told how cushy the jobs are and how overpaid Maplewood employees are. We've also been told that Human Resources was dissolved and replaced by Copeland's office and the new Bethel & Associates, to handle labor negotiations. The idea I guess is that Bethel would do a better job of negotiating on the city's behalf, and cost less to do the job. In terms of benefits, we also heard a lot about how health insurance costs were being held steady. And of course we're supposed to be saving money with a lower cost city attorney.

If we believe Copeland and the Longristas, what we should expect would be a decline in the personnel classification expenditures, and perhaps a modest increase in contractual services (as some of the old HR staff budget moves out of house to Bethel).

Instead, we see a big increase in personnel costs, and a huge jump in contractual services expense.

If there is $500,000 in savings from the staff reorganization and firings (as Longrie's sock puppet has claimed -- though without citation, leading us to wonder where this person gets that specific figure), and we add that to $863,770 in new spending on personnel, then all else being equal, the average Maplewood employee must be getting a 8.1% increase in salary and benefits next year. In fact, it should be more than that, since experienced and supposedly high-paid managers let go (Fursman, Coleman, Anderson, Banick) are presumably being replaced by lower-level employees with lower starting wages. Factor that in (and keep in mind that health care isn't the source of the increase, thanks to the new plan that Copeland touted and claimed credit for), and we should expect the typical employee who was with the city last year to get a pay hike over 10% maybe? That's pretty generous for a tough, experienced negotiator to hand out, especially if there is supposedly a mandate from the council majority to rein in the expenses.

It looks to me like Bethel can be added to the list of costly incompentents that the Longristas have invited to gorge themselves at the city trough.

Remember the document that used to be on the city website, justifying the Xcel tax increase? It claimed that the Xcel tax increase would be used to lower taxes. The TV media dutifully reported that Maplewood was lowering property taxes. It was a flat-out lie. I think Copeland clarified at the meeting that it was really a reduction in next year's expected tax increase -- not exactly the same as a tax cut -- but they successfully inserted the lie into the public consciousness, and gave their supporters a false justification to cling to.

A similar deception has been perpetrated vis a vis spending in the budget. Time and again the Longristas talk about the big savings they're getting by firing and reorganizing and negotiating hard. But in the end, where are these alleged savings? The bottom line is more spending and higher taxes -- and the loss of the experienced, competent people who had successfully held down spending and taxes in past years.

The Double-Digit Lie

2006-12-30T15:01:00.000-06:00

It's an accepted article of faith among the Longristas that we've been suffering double-digit tax increases in Maplewood for years under the previous city manager, mayors and city councils. When they campaigned door to door, talking about the supposed wreck of Maplewood city finances, you know this is a talking point they harped on to voter after voter. (Sometimes claims like this even made it into written literature, and resulted in hot water for a candidate.) Longrie's sock puppet in our comments has repeated this claim, and went so far as to write it into Wikipedia to make it seem more factual. Specifically, she claimed "double-digit increases over the past five years."

It was easy to prove that this claim about the 2006 budget was false. But it is fair to observe that 2006 is only one year, so this doesn't give us a very big picture, and it certainly doesn't disprove a claim about a five-year span.

Therefore, I went back into the archives and dug up the actual levy data to see what is there. Here are the results: more than a decade of Maplewood's tax levies, with the rate of increase of each year over the previous.

Year	Total Tax Levy	% Increase
1995	$8,572,900	(unknown to me)
1996	$8,572,900	0.00%
1997	$8,984,800	4.80%
1998	$8,987,718	0.03%
1999	$8,986,925	-0.01%
2000	$9,167,607	2.01%
2001	$9,842,953	7.37%
2002	$10,238,175	4.02%
2003	$11,855,546	15.80%
2004	$12,679,422	6.95%
2005	$13,434,640	5.96%
2006	$14,106,370	5.00%
2007	$15,550,340	10.24%

(Sources: draft 2007 budget with the Review article on final cuts from the draft budget for the 2007 figure; 2006 budget summary for the 2006 figure; and the 2005 Annual Financial Report, which on page 152 includes the tax levies back to 1995.)

Looking at the past five years, we see levy increases of 4.02%, 15.8%, 6.95%, 5.96% and 5.0%. By no stretch of reason can you claim that this represents "double digit tax increases over the past five years." There was one double-digit increase in that period. The average increase each year was 7.54%.

As far as holding down taxes, this council is objectively doing a worse job than their predecessors. Only one year in the last five had a higher levy increase. They are increasing the levy by a rate 36% higher than the average increase of this period (10.24% versus 7.54%).

Looking at the even bigger picture, you can see that this city council majority's first budget, in which they get to demonstrate their claims of superior fiscal restraint, increases the levy almost twice as much as the average of the past decade of budgets (10.24% versus 5.19%). Again, only one budget in the past decade (2003) has a higher levy increase.

In other words, they lied about the record in order to get into office; and they lied when they promised to do a better job of holding down taxes — or, if you feel more charitable, they promised something that they and their appointed lapdog, Mr. Copeland, are utterly unqualified to deliver.

What's Left of Maplewood (MN)

MapleStirUps 5/9/08

CoPar

MapleStirUps 5/2/08

MapleStirUps 4/25/08

Visitor Presentations, Headlines & an Old College Game

MapleStirUps 4/18/08

Longrie's Maplewood

MapleStirUps 4/11/08

If I were 164% of myself

Don't tell Mama

MapleStirUps 4/4/08

MapleStirUps 3/28/08

MapleStirUps 3/22/08

MapleStirUps 3/14/08

MapleStirUps 3/10/08

The Bill Comes Due

Bombshell

City News: Right on Time

Dear OAH

Candidate Secures Husband's Endorsement

Crunching Numbers

Poor Ms. Cave

New Business Development

Don't Sell the Parks. Sell the Community Center.

"Unreasonable and Illogical"

His Fire Department, Redux

First Name Test

Spelling Test

A Helpful Link for First-Time Visitors

Misrepresentations Of Fact

Parks

Breaking News!

Diana's Campaign Strategy

Rokke's Campaign Strategy

Cave's Campaign Strategy

Bartol's Campaign Strategy

Maplewood Review on Le's Case

Appeals Court Rules Against Le

Just Like Berlin

Walk the Walk

Handwriting on the wall

Yard Sign

Of Unanimous Petitions

Patterns of Culture

Elements of Style

Wordsmith Becky

Meta

After the performance review

Friends, Enemies & erik the Campaign Manager

------- Product Announcement --------

Arrogance Easements tm

Arrogance Easements tm

Total: $6,658.08

Not-So-Secret Agenda

A Rumor About Hot Dogs

Shameless image stealing

Erik, Put That Rock Down

Gas Guzzler

Friends

Ostriches & Their Queen

Found in Translation

Decision time

It's decision time!

Today's matinee feature...

Subtext

More Fear on the Horizon

Left with Lingering, and Unsettling, Questions

That Pesky Open Meeting Law Again

Ironic Double Standards

Caught Sneaking Out

City Pages Story

Remind you of anyone?

Live blog the council meeting

Cautious Optimism

Dessert

A Council Meeting Best Served Cold

This Communication May Be Monitored

Where will all the applicants line up?

Agenda Addition: Item L5

Arrogance Easements ^tm

Arrogance Easements ^tm